Posted on 04/02/2007 8:40:21 AM PDT by topcat54
Conclusion
Although the pretribulation rapture theory is very popular today, given arguments that are offered in support of this doctrine we must declare Pretribulationalism to be contrary to the clear teachings of Scripture. Simply put, there is not one shred of evidence that can be found in the Bible to support the pretribulation rapture. The typical Pretribulational arguments offered reveal a pattern: of imposing one’s presuppositions onto a text without any exegetical justification whatsoever; of finding subtle meaning between words and/or phrases that were never intended by the author; of spiritualizing or ignoring passages that contradict the Pretribulational paradigm; and, of imposing Pretribulationalism upon passages that actually teach the unity of the eschatological complex (i.e., the rapture, second coming, general resurrection, and general judgment all occur on the same day—the day of the Lord). It is our hope and prayer that professing Christians would cast off this escapist fantasy and return to the task of personal sanctification and godly dominion.
(Excerpt) Read more at reformedonline.com ...
Just a guess... :)
I know it's a guess, but why should we follow a tradition formulated at least a century after the time of Christ and may be so inaccurate that it places the destruction of the first temple at least 150 later than it actually occurred?
Anyway, the 6000 year thing is nothing new. Some folks teach that six millennia correspond to the six days of creation and then the seventh. Even well-known dispensationalist Chuck Missler got caught up in that kind of speculative thinking. He notes the potential error in the Hebrew calendar and then says:
These errors would imply a total discrepancy of 239 years. Therefore, the year 5761 should possibly be rendered the year 6000. The Jewish year of 5761 begins on Sept. 30, 2000. … But it is interesting that the United Nations is scheduled to "redefine itself" in September 2000. There are many other reasons to suggest that 2000 will prove to be a very interesting year. (The 7th Millennium)Of course nothing much happened in 2000, or 2001, or 2002, etc wrt the onset of the millennium or things prophetic, but this just goes to show you how far potential date-setters (I call them “date-suggesters”) will go with their unbiblical theories.
The "this generation" Jesus spoke OF was the "this generation" Jesus spoke TO.
AMEN!
God's record of FULFILLED prophecy encourages us today to trust Him despite what the newspapers say.
May God grant that your adult daughter will take you out for lunch and formally thank you for raising her the way you did. Godly children are hardly "nothing."
AMEN and AMEN!
"The father of the righteous shall greatly rejoice: and he that begetteth a wise child shall have joy of him." -- Proverbs 23:24
The fruit of the Spirit is real and tangible and God-given as PROOF that Christ paid for our sins and redeemed His flock.
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." -- Romans 12:2
Christians are not to conform to this world; we are to conform the world to Christ risen and to trust that the fruits of the Spirit are real and purposeful.
"I had fainted, unless I had believed to see the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living.
Wait on the LORD: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the LORD." -- Psalm 27:13-14
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." -- Gal. 5:22-25 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, Ggoodness, faith,
What is the point of "walking in the Spirit," if not to provoke non-believers to jealousy, as Scripture says.
That jealousy comes by seeing Christians TODAY being confident and fruitful and compassionate and spiritually-healthy and worldly-productive. This is what non-believers are to witness and want for themselves -- the fruit of the Spirit on earth because it is a reflection of our joy in heaven.
And in doing so, if God ordains, they will receive the Spirit and know the truth and prove the good and perfect will of God by their walking in the Spirit.
"I had fainted, unless I had believed to see the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living..."
Perhaps we are not reading the same Bible. Where does it "literally" say that all the elect from all time will be gathered by the time judgment would fall on “this generation”? Could it be you are reading more into the text than is there?
Some other things that are interesting in the text:
And then He will send His angels, and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven. (Mark 13:27)One thing is the use of angels. This could very well indicate God’s protection of His people since angels are often employed in His service for that purpose. The “gathering of the elect” by angels could mean they were under divine protection and brought through the tribulation of those days.
Another thing is that it does not speak at all about the result of this gathering. The futurist assumes it means they are being gathered to Christ at His second coming. But the text does not “literally” say that. It’s just so much speculation by the interpreter.
Since His coming in the clouds was just a parable
I don’t know if you are purposely misrepresenting the biblical preterist position, or if you are just slow on the uptake.
No one ever said it was a parable. It can see how it might appear that way to one who imposes a false literal on the text of Scripture, but trust me Jesus was not just telling a story to make a point. Judgment really did fall on those folks. They are really dead and the temple was really destroyed and the kingdom really was taken from Israel and given to the Church as custodian of the new covenant.
Again, thankfully God gave us several versions of Jesus’ words from Olivet. Luke tells us:
For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (vv. 22-24)The subject is unmistakable. AD70 is in view. And in case you doubt the real meaning of Isaiah and the relationship to Olivet, we see repeated these words:
And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; (v. 25)Judgment has come upon ancient Israel, just as it did upon ancient Babylon. The evidence is overwhelming as to the subject of this prophecy. In the words of some immortal but long forgotten person, “Denial is not just a river in Egypt.”
That’s an interesting take on this. So when the elect is caught up in the destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity and death, that was incidental, kind of like collateral damage …
Do you know any that actually were?
I was speaking of persecution in general, which went to explaining how your James 2 passage did not apply in this case. The believers followed Jesus instructions to “flee to the mountains” and were thus saved from the destruction of the wrath of God.
Jesus explained the parable of the wheat and tares this way:
The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! (Matt. 13:38-43)In this account of the second coming, the angels are employed, not to gather the elect, but to gather out the tares from among the elect. It does not make any sense to take the elect out of the world, since we are to inherit the world (Matt. 5:5). It makes far more sense theologically, as it is stated here, to the see unrighteous as the ones being acted upon and removed from Christ’s kingdom finally and forever.
If Matt. 24:31 is the same event then there is a problem somewhere.
1. It was presented as a mystical experience, rather than as a whole new pattern for living.
AMEN!. As spoken in the recent movie, "300" --
"We fight against tyranny and mysticism!"
“I don’t know if you are purposely misrepresenting the biblical preterist position, or if you are just slow on the uptake.”
“No one ever said it was a parable. It can see how it might appear that way to one who imposes a false literal on the text of Scripture, but trust me Jesus was not just telling a story to make a point.”
“I’ve also posted a number of times over the years on the subject of the symbolic phrase “coming in/with clouds” and how that does not require a second coming fulfillment.”
“Jesus “came in clouds” as evidenced by the fact that Jerusalem was destroyed and the high priests killed off.”
You are right, maybe I am a little slow here. You say “coming in clouds” is just a symbolic phrase, and then you say Jesus came in the symbolic phrase, however it was not a literal fulfillment of His coming because that would be a second coming, however Jesus was not just telling a story to make a point. Well, did He or did He not come so that “this generation” or the elect, could see Him? If not then it is a parable, a simple story (symbolic) illustrating a truth. And if His coming was symbolic, and the angels (”could very well indicate God’s protection) and the gathering of the elect (”where does it say ‘literally’”) are symbolic, why then is not “this generation” just a symbolic phrase since it is connected to these symbolic phrases?
Rev. 1:7, “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.” Sounds a whole lot like what Jesus predicted and you don’t need to spiritualize it.
I’ve been following this thread right along...I assume many lurkers have as well...
What I get out of the thread is that if you believe what God said in the scripture, you will see a rapture...You will see the tribulation period...
You will recognize that the Kingdom of God, the kingdome within you, the Spiritual kingdom, the church age is here and now...
The physical Kingdom, where God sits on the Throne of David and rules with a rod of iron, is future...
In other words, the pre-millenial system...
On the other hand, if you take a tremendous amount of scripture and parabalize it, you can pretty much make the scripture fit whatever brand of theology you chose...
Is this then, at last, an oblique admission that a disciple did, in fact, speak of the Millennium?
:)
” And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
I'll see your Freud and raise you a Carroll...
“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
Of cabbages—and kings—
Indeed! That “missing thing” would be something called a “Biblical eschatology. But I digress...
“... there is no refernce to “coming on the clouds” in the passage you quoted. Would you like to rephrase the question?”
For your convenience, a "cloudless" version:
When, in your timetable, did Jesus destroy the antichrist (the man of sin) at his “coming on the clouds”?
This sounds like a kissing cousin to gnosticism. The Bible makes sense, but only if you have your secret decoder ring.
I have already stated plainly that His “coming on clouds” in AD70 is different than His second coming at the end of the age.
So remind me again what is the issue?
Yes one is a future reality and one is a construct designed to force AD 70 into a particularly faulty eschatological view.
Thank you for sharing your testimony and views!
Correct so far (I think) but I didn’t say that “Jesus came in the symbolic phrase” whatever that means.
What I said was, and maybe I wasn’t clear, that Jesus came against the nation of Israel in judgment through the agency of the armies of Rome, just as God came against Israel in 586 BC by the armies of Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar.
“In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.” (Dan. 1:1)
Did God come against Israel? Or was it merely the human agent of King Nebuchadnezzar? See Jer. 25:8ff.
Interesting that Daniel speaks of Jerusalem being besieged and that Luke describes the event of AD70 with similar language (Luke 19:43).
Well, did He or did He not come so that “this generation” or the elect, could see Him?
I’m only trying to apply language as it is found in other portions of the Scripture. It’s called the grammatical-historical method and the analogy of faith. Apocalyptic passages of Scripture tend to be loaded with symbols and images. The symbols and images are not real, but what they represent is very real. If you ignore the symbols, or act as if anything that doesn’t look like a symbols by human reasoning isn’t one, you’ll miss the message of the passage.
Take the beast with seven heads and ten horns in Revelation. Is the beast real, or is the thing represented by the “beast” real? What would one see with one’s natural eyes if they were to encounter the “beast”?
why then is not “this generation” just a symbolic phrase since it is connected to these symbolic phrases?
That’s a very good question. The reason why I say it is probably not symbolic is because of the analogy of faith. If we compare all the places where the same or similar phrase is used in the Bible, esp. in the gospels, we find that it always refers to Jesus’ contemporary generation of Jews.
Remember, we cannot be arbitrary in our interpretation. We must have some reason why we interpret in such a fashion. It would be rather arbitrary to say that every other place in the Bible where this phrase is used it means that generation of Jews except in this one instance when Jesus spoke at Olivet.
Similarly, to say that the phrase “sun being darkened …” refers to the physical objects in the sky is to be arbitrary in that it ignores all the places in the Bible where similar constructs are found.
My dear friend you really are not helping your cause. You’re beginning to sound as if you have been reduced to blurting out superficial nonsense. Where’s the beef? Get back in the text. Give us something worth considering.
I don’t think, as a dispensationalist, you want to bring up decoder ring theology.
Oh, I would put my eschatological understanding against what you are proposing any day. As a matter of fact, I have. Still here.
AMEN!. As spoken in the recent movie, “300” -”
Screeeeeeechhhhhhh!!!! (Smell of burnt tires.)
Hold up there Dr. E!!! You’re saying you don’t recognize the mystical and miraculous nature of the new birth??? Do you think becoming a Christian is a purely intellectual affair??? Like one comes to accept a theory or a political position?
Conversion is a crisis and a process. It is a crisis effecting intellect and emotions that results in a radical modification to the volition - redirecting the course and nature of the individual’s life - all of which is accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit. Think of the narrow gate and the narrow way. You've gotta pass through the narrow gate (crisis) to get on the narrow way (process).
As for it not being presented correctly as a “mystical experience” consider these words: The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
If that's not mystical language then I don't know what is.
TomSmedley: if the “crippled gospel” got you saved - what are you complaining about???
Dr. Eckleburg: You know I’m not trying to pick on you - just don’t make is so dang easy! 8-)
You have not stated that to me. Where can I find your comments on this?
Your postulation 2 second comings???
Wouldn't that actually make the 2nd second coming the 3rd coming???
The only problem is that in Revelation the elders are in heaven before the seals are opened, (ie... the elders are clearly identified, with dilegent study). Also, study 1 Thes. carefully. Also study the writings of the church fathers before the end of the fourth century.
And finally study Noahs flood. (hint: Enoch models the church)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.